Conservatives

[takeanumber]

I'd agree with August.

But meh. There are other priorities.

The thing with things not being costed is that they become easy to ignore. A 'commitment' or 'intention' is meaningless if there's no actual money costed out for the plan.

Otherwise, other priorities, which also have not been costed, can easily take precendence, and the announced policy during the an election becomes nothing more than an announced policy.

[Argus]

Once again, what is it with you and attacking people instead of the arguement?

This is rich coming from a guy who accused me of being a Nazi holocaust denier yesterday because I support free speech.

[Argus]

Take 3 billion, add 5 years (2006 minimum), I think it'll end up being 5 billion in the end, maybe?  Demand for gear is up.  who knows.  I said it was 5 back then, but I said it would cost 5 now, so whatever.  I'm wrong.

But I didn't just pull the number out of the air.

So, it's not costed.

Government's rarely cost out future capital purchases. They don't know exactly what they need or what it'll cost. You often don't even get them in budgets either. Nor do you need to have them there as such purchases are normally paid for over a number of years.

For example, the total payment for the helicopters was not merely for the machines. It included maintenance and parts for the life of the machines. And the payment would be over many years. The same would go for new warships or tanks. The Liberals recently announced they intended to purchase new Stryker mobile artillery guns. You never heard about them before that. There was no mention in the previous election and no mention in previous budgets. That's just the way it tends to work with capital purchases. Three billion for helicopters could be paid out at $300m per year for ten years. You can take that money from any number of places - like the sponsorship program, for example.

However, if we would straighten out DND, streamline the civilian side, do something about the disproportionate number of officers, dump a large number of our military bases, and stop using DND procurement as a job creation program, such things would be considerably more affordable. Check out what Australia gets for its bucks. Their military is considerably more powerful than ours and they spend less on it.

[Stoker]

I remember a 500 million dollar cancellation fee, from the original Eurocopter contract.

That fee is correct, and it was under ole Jean..........but if we go with AugstaWestland (the original company from the 90s) helicopter, the EH-101, they will take the 500 million off the purchase price.

Heavy lift aircraft....how many? They're expensive.

New tanks. Relatively cheap for the chassey. The gear inside is expensive.

The Heavy lift Aircraft (C-17), would cost about 300 million per.......as for the tanks (Abrams or Leo IIs) in the ballpark of about 5-7 million per

So, $5 billion for helicopters means about $200 from me for the damn things. Or, $160 if we use the other price tag. Whatever. I'd say OK and sign off - those old helicopters don't even fly anymore.

and

Government's rarely cost out future capital purchases. They don't know exactly what they need or what it'll cost. You often don't even get them in budgets either. Nor do you need to have them there as such purchases are normally paid for over a number of years.

Thats exactly right, and we are one of the very few forces that don't do that........thats why we are in such a sad state.

[takeanumber]

This is rich coming from a guy who accused me of being a Nazi holocaust denier yesterday because I support free speech.

You support the freedom to deny the holocaust.

I have yet to read that you deny the holocaust. I don't believe that I called you a holocaust denier. If I did, I don't remember, and if I did, I'm sorry for it. But I seriously don't remember calling you a holocaust denier.

The freedom to be able to deny the Holocaust will, hopefully, like the freedom to streak, freedom to expose ones genetals, and the freedom to tape swastikas on synagogue doors, that you will never be allowed to do legally.

Most freedoms have limits attached.

This is one such limit that I support.

I feel absolutely aweful for having such an anti-liberal view of it, but I just can't swallow it. I don't know why. Maybe I had a few problems with neo-nazis when I was growing up?

---------------------------

Alright, Harper didn't even set any money aside exclusively for any of that equipment.

To argue that since government doesn't know the cost of anything means that a government can't 'cost' anything is inacurate.

True, the excercise of costing is difficult.

Yet, many future services are costed.

So, I'll repeat myself:

Because Harper didn't cost out any of that equipment, he's not serious about buying it.

It's not a major priority.

Otherwise, it would have been costed.

It's the same game the Liberals play. Make a commitment, don't mention a dollar figure, and that way, you can always point to the other things that you did when you're called on why you broke your past commitments.

[Argus]

This is rich coming from a guy who accused me of being a Nazi holocaust denier yesterday because I support free speech.

You support the freedom to deny the holocaust.

Yeah, so?

I have yet to read that you deny the holocaust.

I haven't read your denial that you're a paedophile yet either. Why should I have to deny something when I've never written anything which gives evidence I support it?

Most freedoms have limits attached.

We're talking about a very basic freedom. You don't put more limits on basic freedoms than you absolutely need to. You only put limits to protect other people's freedoms.

Our law is based on precedent. The anti-hate laws are justified on the extremely dangerous basis that hate speech can endanger the public good by provoking anger and dislike at an identifable target. This is just sooooo close to the anti free speech laws that places like North Korea, China and the old USSR had in place that it's scary.

Now given the precedent that banning certain types of speech is permissable in order to keep people from being provoked into violence, you can then institute another law which bans speech against the government, ban speech which brings government ministers into disrepute, or causes lack of respect for the government. It isn't as far fetched as it might sound, especially if you have a long established government which has appointed the majority of the members of the Supreme Court (like this one has).

You don't go from complete free speech to no free speech overnight except in a coup. But what can happen, as Orwell foresaw, is that your rights to free speech, and other rights, can be chipped slowly away over years until you have nothing left. That's why those with a broader view do not accept things like gag laws and hate speech laws without an urgent and demonstrable need.

BTW, the pre Nazi Germans had a hate speech law. A lot of Nazis went to jail because of it. That didn't do any good, of course, and when the Nazis took over it took only minor tinkering with the definition of that law to use it against Jews, labour activists, communists, and other government opponents.

[takeanumber]

What I was saying there was:

I havn't called you a holocaust denier.

As for your excellent reply to the responsibility of freedom and the caustics to society:

Great job Argus on the use of the 'slipery slope' boiler plate. Seriously.

And it's why I'm have that anti-liberal streak in me.

To prevent myself from falling down that slippery slope, I restrict my anti-liberalism to questions of Holocaust denial and hate speech.

I control my anti-liberalism by restricting it to those two boxes, and prevent a slide into authoritarianism.

I can understand why you'd fight for your right to complete, unfettered free speech (possibly including slander), for the principle.

I'll give you, sir Argus, the benefit of the doubt.

That you're arguing on the principle, and not because you want the right to inflict harm upon minority communities.

Just be aware that when you make arguements like that, you risk being confused for those who want the right to deny the holocaust and the right to hate speech because they want to inflict harm.

Alright, so are you fine with my explanation?

You don't have to say that you agree with the stand, just that the explanation has signs of soundness and completeness.

[Argus]

To prevent myself from falling down that slippery slope, I restrict my anti-liberalism to questions of Holocaust denial and hate speech.

I control my anti-liberalism by restricting it to those two boxes, and prevent a slide into authoritarianism.

Ahh, cool. Btw, suppose I am a member of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Our motto is "Sex by eight or it's too late". We want to advocate for unrestricted sex with children. We want to write and talk and lobby for this. Is that okay with you?

Just be aware that when you make arguements like that, you risk being confused for those who want the right to deny the holocaust and the right to hate speech because they want to inflict harm.

You mean like Stockwell Day, who accused the lawyer representing a child porn defendant of supporting kiddy porn, and lost a lawsuit over it?

You don't have to say that you agree with the stand, just that the explanation has signs of soundness and completeness.

I understand where you think you are, but I think your position unsupportable by logic, and dangerous.

When Nazis wanted to have a peaceful march in Skokie, Ill, the home of a number of Holcaust deniers, the government said no. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who fought for their right to march. Maybe you should think about why.

[maplesyrup]

The Man Show

BURLINGTON, Ont. — I must have missed this in the Conservative campaign manual, but you have to be a man to be a Harper candidate — in any event, a dark suit and short hair are mandatory.

This probably isn't written down anywhere, but it is pretty obvious: at Stephen Harper's lunchtime rally in Guelph today, he was joined on stage by six identikit male candidates.

At a boisterous evening rally that drew 1,400 extremely angry voters in Burlington, Harper boasted about his “broadly based and diverse” new Conservative party. Then he intoduced his local contenders and they skip-jumped on to the stage, one after the other: eight middle-aged guys in suits.

To be fair, the Harper team does have female candidates, including Megan Harris, a black communications consultant running in Toronto-Rosedale against foreign affairs minister Bill Graham.

Chances: slim.

To be doubly fair, Paul Martin showed up last week in front of a five-man (literally) squad of candidates in Victoria.

His Calgary team, headed by bouncy Julia Turnbull, was way more diverse. But when was the last time the Libs won a seat in Calgary?

Moral: neither major party could be bothered working for equality. Maybe we shouldn't bother voting for them. 

Riley on the Road

[takeanumber]

When Nazis wanted to have a peaceful march in Skokie, Ill, the home of a number of Holcaust deniers, the government said no. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who fought for their right to march. Maybe you should think about why.

What's your point?

I'm supposed to feel sorry for the neo-Nazis?

[idealisttotheend]

I think the point is that one must read Mein Kampf to understand Hitler and prevent his kind's return. Whether this is Argus' point or not remains to be seen.

[Argus]

When Nazis wanted to have a peaceful march in Skokie, Ill, the home of a number of Holcaust deniers, the government said no. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who fought for their right to march. Maybe you should think about why.

What's your point?

I'm supposed to feel sorry for the neo-Nazis?

No. The reason the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march - no matter how offensive they considered them, was to protect everyone's freedom, not that of the Nazis. This was a classic first amendment (free speech) issue and wound up setting in stone that any group may assemble and march peacefully no matter how unpopular they were.

David Goldberger, the main lawyer acting on behalf of the Nazis, made the point that if the government was allowed to ban the free and peaceful gathering and march of *A* group then they could use the same justification to ban the peaceful gathering and march of *any* group.

"We can't let those filthy Nazis march up and down the streets because so many people hate them and will throw rocks and cause a riot and stuff."

Reasonable, on the surface. Except that the same reasoning would have banned civil rights protests in a lot of places in the sixties. And probably ban anti war marches in a lot of places today.

Either we all have the same rights or none of us have any rights - except what the government allows - for now. The best way to protect the rights of Jews is to ensure the freedom of our society. Granted, Nazis are unpleasant, but we endanger our own rights when we set precedents which allow us to crush the rights of an unpleasant group.

[takeanumber]

Either we all have the same rights or none of us have any rights - except what the government allows - for now.

This thesis is not correct.

We have had anti-hate legislation on the books now for decades.

And there exists most of us who retained massive freedoms.

The 'all or nothing' thesis is checked by 'reason'.

[Alliance Fanatic]

The fact is that in some ways a constitution which is enforced by courts is a bad thing. That means that communities would be forced to have gay pride parades, and also neo nazi parades. So maybe we should consider having a republic were we have common values which include.

- Respect for human life in all its forms

- Respect for the family, including the traditional definition

- Respect for traditional values

[Michael Hardner]

So maybe we should consider having a republic were we have common values which include.

- Respect for human life in all its forms

- Respect for the family, including the traditional definition

- Respect for traditional values

This just sounds like another constitution to me.

Any constitution will change over time, according to the values of the nation.

[playfullfellow]

Allowing everyone the freedom to say what they want in public is a very scary proposition. We have enacted laws that ban this sort of behavior such as Arian Nation rantings and such. As for people who want to deny the holocaust, they have obviously never been to one of the concentration camps and felt the evil that still emiates from those horrible places. They have also not perused the thousands of pictures that show the starvation and death plus the mass graves in these camps. These people are basically anti-Jew and Judaism is protected under the charter as freedom of religion. Arian nations have tried this approach of trying to start Arian nation churches but this guise has failed also. They still promote hatred which is not allowed. The problem with a lot of radical groups is they also promote violence against whatever group they hate be it a religious group or a group of colour skinned people. We as a nation can not allow this sort of behaviour. We are all allowed to have our opinions but when we start to promote hatred, then we need to draw the line.

I may not agree with the gay lifestyle, this does not grant me the right to encourage beating gay people up or promoting hatred towards them because they are different than me but I am still allowed to have my own opinion on the matter.

I hate to say it but having too many freedoms leads to chaos. The main reasons we have rules is keep order. Even the most pre-historic societies had rules that stipulated what behavivior was allowed. Anytime society has allowed hatred towards one group or another, it has lead to the downfall of that society. Romans against Christians, Jews against Christians, Christians against Jews, NAZI's against Jews and so forth.

I can have my opinion on certain matters and am allowed to debate my opinion. If my debate sways people to my way of thinking then so be it but I should be open minded enough view other peoples opinions as being viable and respect their views. I can not however condone hatred towards a certain group of people. Even though I do not agree with certain groups and their choices does not mean I hate these people, I simply do not agree with them.

[babs]

When it comes time to elect a party to govern our great country, on June 28th, all I hope and pray is that John Q. Public votes sanely at the ballot box!

There is much in the Reform>Aliance>Conservative platform that should be of of grave concern to Canadians.

I for one do not mind admitting that some of the things being proposed by the Reform-Aliance-Conservative Party are, without a doubt, unnerving and given that Mr. Harpur's election promises carry a price tag of 58 billion dollars certainly leaves me wondering if he will find that kind of cash by cutting our social programs or by raising our taxes. He will surely have to rob Peter to pay Paul!

I am also very concerned about Mr. Harpur's intent to pour millions, if not billions, into the military. Today Canada is seen as a peace-keeping nation. Do we really want to become a nation that could possibly be perceived by other countries as becoming a military threat? Do we really want to become a prime target for terrorists? The government would then have to pour even more money into the military to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism? That would indeed be a very slippery slope if we were to embark upon it and I seriously do not see the need for Canada to become a military model of the U.S.A.

I also urge all die hard Progressive Conservatives out there to open their eyes to the reality that the party you were once a member of no longer exists...Stephen Harper never was, nor ever will be, a true Progressive Conservative. The New Conservatives are nothing more than the old Reform-Alliance inside of the Trojan Horse.

There is certainly much food for thought during this election and I urge every single person who reads this posting to be certain that you are well informed as to where the Party Leaders stand on the important issues before you vote!

In my sincerest opinion; After the dust has settled it will indeed be a very dark day for Canadians should we end up with the Trojan Horse.

[Kliege]

The Trojans Horse Babs is Paul Martin and the Liberals.

[babs]

The Trojans Horse Babs is Paul Martin and the Liberals.

That is a very unintelligent reply. The Liberals have been governing this country for years now and we know that there will be a consistency in the governing of our country once they have been re-elected.

It is my opinion, should the Reform>Aliance>New Conservative Party ever be given the right to govern, that Mr. Harpur has no intention of holding to the ideals of Canadian Citizens and indeed if you were to look beyond the disguise of the New Conservatives you would see that they do have a hidden agenda that has been engineered to change Canada to the point that we will never beable to recover form the downspin.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I am also very concerned about Mr. Harpur's intent to pour millions, if not billions, into the military. Today Canada is seen as a peace-keeping nation. Do we really want to become a nation that could possibly be perceived by other countries as becoming a military threat? Do we really want to become a prime target for terrorists? The government would then have to pour even more money into the military to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism? That would indeed be a very slippery slope if we were to embark upon it and I seriously do not see the need for Canada to become a military model of the U.S.A.

Yeah what's the point of having a well equipped military. What kind of a complete idiot believes in having new military equipment for our soldiers, and having enough money to guard our coastlines from terrorists. As for peacekeeping nation, we did'nt do much peacekeeping in world war 1 and 2. Even in the Korean war we were peacemaking. So under your logic during world war 2 Canada should'nt have built up its military in order to not be a target of nazi germany or Japan. It seems fairly cowardly to me.

[Stoker]

I am also very concerned about Mr. Harpur's intent to pour millions, if not billions, into the military. Today Canada is seen as a peace-keeping nation. Do we really want to become a nation that could possibly be perceived by other countries as becoming a military threat? Do we really want to become a prime target for terrorists? The government would then have to pour even more money into the military to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism? That would indeed be a very slippery slope if we were to embark upon it and I seriously do not see the need for Canada to become a military model of the U.S.A.

Using that logic, perhaps if we cull our nations police forces, the crime rate will drop

[playfullfellow]

It is my opinion, should the Reform>Aliance>New Conservative Party ever be given the right to govern, that Mr. Harpur has no intention of holding to the ideals of Canadian Citizens and indeed if you were to look beyond the disguise of the New Conservatives you would see that they do have a hidden agenda that has been engineered to change Canada to the point that we will never beable to recover form the downspin.

Let's see some evidence of this hidden agenda please. Hmmmmmmmm maybe it is hidden very well and you can not find it. Or is it because that Mr. Harper comes from a religious background that there absolutely has to be a hidden agenda. Mr Harpers 58 billion is also small compared to what the other parties propose to spend and where will they get the money?

The Liberals have been governing this country for years now and we know that there will be a consistency in the governing of our country once they have been re-elected.

So in other words we can look forward to more scandals, wasted money and useless propaganda programs that make fat cat Liberal suck ups richer? Mr. Martin is not the leader he proclaimed to be and will lose control of the party much the same way as Stockwell did. So, I advice you to read your own advice on thinking about the leader you would want to run this country. Do you really want a leader that uses tax evasion rules to his advantage? Buys votes from Quebec through various agencies? Shuts down investigations before they are complete or get to the truth? Limit the powers of the Auditor General so more scandals don't come to the surface? So, in all essance, who has the hidden agenda? It may not be a hidden agenda but the Liberals certainly have more to hide than any other party and it is in their best interest to retain power so the books do not get opened up.

So I urge you to show this hidden agenda. I am an open minded person and will listen to reason and definate evidence. Facts and evidence talk so show me the evidence.

[babs]

I am also very concerned about Mr. Harpur's intent to pour millions, if not billions, into the military. Today Canada is seen as a peace-keeping nation. Do we really want to become a nation that could possibly be perceived by other countries as becoming a military threat? Do we really want to become a prime target for terrorists? The government would then have to pour even more money into the military to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism? That would indeed be a very slippery slope if we were to embark upon it and I seriously do not see the need for Canada to become a military model of the U.S.A.

Yeah what's the point of having a well equipped military. What kind of a complete idiot believes in having new military equipment for our soldiers, and having enough money to guard our coastlines from terrorists. As for peacekeeping nation, we did'nt do much peacekeeping in world war 1 and 2. Even in the Korean war we were peacemaking. So under your logic during world war 2 Canada should'nt have built up its military in order to not be a target of nazi germany or Japan. It seems fairly cowardly to me.

Forgive me for not being a war monger. What I actually said was that today Canada is seen as a peace keeping nation.

You want to support the escalation of the militarization of the nations of the world. Canada is a peace keeping model for the rest of the world and as such is leading by example the way to world peace. It is one thing to provide our peace keepers with the equipment they need to perform their necessary duties, it is entirely another to pour billions into the military thereby giving other countries the impression that Canada may now be interested in become a military power.

We have more important things to spend our money on at home. Try to have some consideration for our working poor and for those who are homeless. Try to have some consideration for our seniors and our healthcare system. Try to have some consideration for the ballooning student loan debt. I could go on but, assuming that you are half intelligent, I'm sure you get my drift.

You do realize that Canada will never beable to sustain huge amounts of military spending without causing its people to suffer for it.

P.S.

You wouldn't by any chance be a Reform>Aliance member in disguise would you?

[takeanumber]

Gallant's comments that most of the caucus wants to repeal bill C-250 is a pretty good indication of what a Canadian Alliance government is going to be like.

(I've lost hope that the party has moderated. Peter Mackay, who has no credibility anymore, has failed.)

- Respect for human life in all its forms

- Respect for the family, including the traditional definition

- Respect for traditional values

Alright, so by these standards, we should go back to the system where divorce is illegal, and a white person can't marry a black person?

We should reimpose the old aboriginal sign in/sign out system?

We should restore the previous status quo of aboriginals and Chinese Canadians not being able to vote?

We should take away the female vote in Quebec?

When you throw language around about 'traditional values', you risk being lumped in with the neo-nazis, Zundels, and polygamous Mormon cults.

[Argus]

Either we all have the same rights or none of us have any rights - except what the government allows - for now.

This thesis is not correct.

We have had anti-hate legislation on the books now for decades.

And there exists most of us who retained massive freedoms.

The 'all or nothing' thesis is checked by 'reason'.

As I said, the loss of freedom is generally not something which happens overnight. But examine this short period of time you call 'decades'. Hate legislation was first introduced in 1979. It was the first law which criminalized opinion.

Since then it was been strengthened and widened several times.

In 1993 the possesion of "kiddy porn" was criminalized (as opposed to simply banning it). This law also has been expanded and strengthened. Now merely visiting a web site which contains kiddy porn can get you ten years in prison, even if you don't download anything.

Further, it now includes any written material which "advocates or counsels" sexual activity with a person under 18 - whether it is pornographic or not. This law is also in the process of being further strengthened.

Last month the SC gave the okay to the gag law, which restricts political expression during elections. And again applies criminal sanctions (up to 5 years in prison).

Do you not see where this is going as these laws mount, year after year, and are strengthened and widened year after year?

Our freedom of speech will not be washed away with one mighty law banning anything we say, but in a slow, trickling erosion of free speech by stupid little laws which will slowly curtail what we can do and say.

BTW, you don't realize how many laws have curtailed our freedom over the past thirty or forty odd years. If you live in a city today and are under fifty or sixy chances are you simply take it for granted that almost everything is banned unless you've specifically been told it's not. Whether it's laws against letting your dog run free, against the height of your fence, against burning leaves, against playing hockey in the street or skateboarding on the sidewalk, about what colour to paint your garage door, what noise you can make, whether you can use weed killer on your lawn or leave your old, broken down Chevy in the driveway. You're not allowed to renovate your own house without getting permission. You can't buy a car without standing in line to have all the government paperwork done. You need to meekly fill out forms and ask permissions for almost anything and everything you might care to do within the city today. And if you want to open a business - holy jumping Jesus the number of laws and bylaws and regulations you need to meet and conform to!

And you know what, these laws never go away. They're only added to.